“An extremely interesting paper, unnoticed by any former historian, has been pointed out by Mr. G. G. Coulton as inserted in the Official Register of Walter Stapeldon, the good Bishop of Exeter, as early as 1319. It is entitled " The Inspection and Description of the Daughter of the Count of Hainault," and a later hand has added, undated, " who was called Philippa, and who was Queen of England, wedded to Edward III ". The description is most minute, and runs as follows : " The lady whom..." ” [Quoted from Philippa of Hainault and Her Times (also available as 360-page .pdf)]

“His queen had been marked out at the early age of nine; Bishop Stapledon was sent overseas to inspect her at that age, and this is the report he brought home to Edward II in 1323:

“The lady whom we saw has not uncomely hair, betwixt blue-black and brown. Her head is clean shaped; her forehead high and broad, and standing somewhat forward. Her face narrows between the eyes, and the lower part of her face is still more narrow and slender than her forehead. Her eyes are blackish-brown and deep. Her nose is fairly smooth and even, save that it is somewhat broad at the tip and flattened, yet it is no snub-nose. Her nostrils are also broad, her mouth fairly wide. Her lips somewhat full, and especially the lower lip. Her teeth which have fallen and grown again are white enough, but the rest are not so white. the lower teeth project a little beyond the upper; yet this is but little seen. Her ears and chin are comely enough. Her neck, shoulders, and all her body and lower limbs are reasonably well shapen; all her limbs are well set and unmaimed; and nought is amiss so far as a man may see. Moreover, she is brown of skin all over, and much like her father; and in all things she is pleasant enough, as it seems to us. and the damsel will be of the age of nine years on St. John’s Day next to come, as her mother saith. She is neither too tall nor too short for such an age; she is of fair carriage, and well taught in all that becometh her rank, and highly esteemed and well beloved of her father and mother and all of her meinie, in so far as we could inquire and learn of the truth.” [Quoted from The Plantagenets]

Now read on. Is Balls just dumb,
another poor intellect who has been crammed through
the parrot system without having any capacity to think
independently, or is he just a socialist liar?

“But, as I argued a year ago in my Bloomberg
speech, the global economy is sliding into that
rare and dangerous "special case" that
Keynes identified in the 1930s and Japan suffered
in the 1990s. And, as Ed Miliband argued this week,
our world economic leaders need a global plan B
for growth.”
—
“ ...Yes, have clear medium-term plans to
get deficits down, but have clear plans to avoid
a global slump, too.”

Just what do you think you mean
by ‘slump’, Mister Balls?

I’m betting on stupidity.
Ed Balls has that arrogance so definitive of the stupid.

A good demonstration of the divide between
education and intelligence is that you can make a foolish
man like Balls or Brown the Clown appear
to be clever if you teach them enough cliches. But it is
damned near impossible to teach them to think for themselves
with the substitute for education so widespread in our society!

how conservatives and
socialists each manage the uk economy

If Margaret Thatcher had tried
to cling on to failing subsidised industries, like
coal mining and steel production, Britain would have
continued to lose economic power and progress, just
as in the situation she inherited from socialism.

Brown the Clown and his cronies
did exactly the same as had the governments that left
Thatcher with such a mess.

Bliar and the Brown the Clown tried
to cling on, instead of rein in wasteful and destructive
spending. So most of what Thatcher left to the country,
the fascist ‘New’
Labour Party wasted and frittered away again.
Of course, they did that primarily to bribe stupid
voters, and thus to cling to power. The dogmas outweighed
(and outweigh) intelligent action.

As said, socialists are Luddites.
They cannot and will not adapt.

It is the difference between Tory
patriotism and leadership versus socialist appeasement
and incompetence. It is the difference between self-centred
Leftist politicians, and the real needs of the country.

It is the difference between the
self-indulgence of weaklings, and those who realise
wealth must be earned before it can be spent. Spending
is the easy bit. That’s
why spending is all that socialists ever manage.

So, you have a cycle: the Conservatives
build the country, and socialists just waste and bribe
and steal.

Socialists are no better than looters
and vandals.

The more attractive the country
becomes, the more eager the stupid Socialist vandals
become to smash the windows and ‘spread the
wealth around’.

Socialism is on the side of the
mobs.
Socialism is a creed that caters to fools.
It is a creed which tries to expand the numbers of
fools in order to increase their own power.
That is, at core, why the schools are failing after
15 years more of socialist destruction.

end note

Gordon Brown has
oftimes been described as neglecting the roof while
the sun shines. That is, instead of setting aside reserves
during economic good times in preparation for any bad
times, Gordon Brown spent and spent and borrowed and borrowed, increasing deficit
spending without let, despite having promised that he
would balance the budget.

Keynes advised increased public spending for a limited
period during a recession, to reboot the economy, for example
by using borrowing to returning people to employment doing useful public works.
Keynes also strongly avocated paying off debt and building
reserves in good times. Brown the Clown cherry-picked
Keynes’ advice, ignoring the part which keeps
a country’s economy healthy.

“America is a religious nation. Polls may differ,
but most find that over 80 percent of Americans say
they believe in God. Fifty percent also say they go
to church on Sunday, while only half of those actually
do...”

It is dissonant that government complains
that the young steal from others for what they want,
while the government steals from the tax payer for what
they want. (For those who cannot
think it through, suitable examples are ‘expenses’
and union handouts.)

Both sets of thieves want to live beyond
their means.

The claim that Tony Bliar was
somehow different from the whole sorry socialist crew
is risible. Bliar is/was fully complicit and is a clone
Fabian Marxist.

“On what foundation is the present family, the
bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain.
In its completely developed form, this family exists
only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things
finds its complement in the practical absence of the
family among proletarians, and in public prostitution.

“The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter
of course when its complement vanishes, and both will
vanish with the vanishing of capital.”

It continues:

“The bourgeois claptrap about the family and
education, about the hallowed correlation of parents
and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more,
by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties
among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children
transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments
of labor.”
—
“The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument
of production. He hears that the instruments of production
are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come
to no other conclusion that the lot of being common
to all will likewise fall to the women.

“He has not even a suspicion that the real point
aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere
instruments of production.

“For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than
the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community
of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially
established by the Communists. The Communists have no
need to introduce free love; it has existed almost from
time immemorial.

“Our bourgeois, not content with having wives
and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal,
not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest
pleasure in seducing each other's wives.

“Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system
of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists
might possibly be reproached with is that they desire
to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed,
an openly legalized system of free love. For the rest,
it is self-evident that the abolition of the present
system of production must bring with it the abolition
of free love springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution
both public and private.”